I’m not arguing that it’s OK to talk during movies. I’m saying that Steve’s reaction is way out of whack with how much of a social crime it actually is. I’ve heard a lot of childless people talk about what they’d do if they had kids, and then not actually feeling the same way once they really do have kids.

I do have kids. I personally wouldn’t take my kids to Dark Knight (mine are 7 and 3 right now), but I’ve taken them to kids movies and it’s very well understood that when you go to Ice Age 2 that kids are going to talk. A better example might be Wall-E, which appealed to both adults and children. My kids didn’t talk, but other people’s kids did, especially when they were confused (”Why is that happening Mommy?”) and it really doesn’t bother me – I understand it comes with the territory, and I would have gone to a late showing if I wanted to avoid that issue.

Steve wrote:

“Society will fall apart if we accept unacceptable behavior merely because we assume it will happen.”

My opinion is that kids talking during movies is not what is destroying society.

Tell you what. Don’t argue with me. Instead, show your post and your comments to your mom, and ask her if she agrees, or if she thinks that perhaps you’re taking it a bit too hard. I’m interested in what her response is.

- As far as kicking your seat, that’s different. Did you say anything to the parents?

- My “only an idiot” comment was specific. Do you disagree? Would you care to make a side bet, where I will choose a kid’s movie and a venue and showtime on opening weekend, and I will give you 100-1 odds that at some point in the movie, there will be laughing and yelling?

Kids movies have different standards as far as making noise during the show. As do comic book movies. No, there’s not a preview clip before the movie starts that tells you so, but it’s a clearly established social norm in this country. During comic book movies people cheer when the hero triumphes over the villain. In kids movies, kids laugh at almost everything.

Whatever. Your mind is made up at the moment – my guess is you’ll have a more nuanced view in a couple decades. Perhaps not – then again, that stealthmunk dude also believes he’ll never feel differently as well.

With you as the sole arbiter as to what is socially acceptable?

If you go see a documentary about the Holocaust, there won’t be any little kids and the theatre will be hushed from start to finish.

If you go see Shrek III at 1 in the afternoon on opening weekend, only an idiot would expect a quiet theatre, and it’s assumed there will be a ton of kids shouting and yelling and laughing from beginning to end.

Now, Dark Knight falls somewhere in the middle. It’s supposed to be a more adult movie, but it’s also about Batman. What you should expect is some cheering and some talking in the theatre, and depending upon your neighbourhood, perhaps a lot of cheering and talking.

The way you avoid huge crowds is you don’t go opening weekend. The way you avoid little kids is you go to showing that start later than 9 PM, or if it’s during school and you want to avoid teenagers, go after 8 on a school night.

I was at Wharton and one of the things that got me onto the MBA programme (class of 2000) was my background in professional gambling. My background was mainly in European sports betting but I played some poker at a reasonable level (pre Internet era though…) and I was later told by the admissions departmetn that it has been a positive aspect of my application. So, I honestly don’t think that the school is anti-gambling (check out some of the research done by Justin Wolfers, one of the professors at Wharton, on the predictive value of gaming markets).

I don’t know what your GMAT is like but it is now tough to get into Wharton with a score below 740. They have about seven times (I think) more applications at a 740+ score than they have places, which means they then have to choose among those applicants. There is a huge emphasis on teamwork throughout the course and I suspect your application did not show either evidence of your previous success in teamwork (which you might not have) OR your commitment to teamwork in the future (which I am sure you could have found a way to bluff).

The truth is that most people who know nothing about poker think that poker players are selfish, ruthless, self centered individuals and that most people who spend a lot of time in the poker world find out that those impressions – in about 90% of cases – are based in truth. To be a good poker player does, I am afraid, mean that you have to exhibit most of these character traits. Perhaps you are different and just failed to get this across on the application forms?

I realize you want to get on a MBA programme as quickly as possible but you might want to have a think about re-applying next year rather than going to Fordham. Stern, Columbia and Wharton are in a different league to Fordham and it will make a major difference to your post MBA career. There will be a lot of firms (eg Goldman Sachs, Mckinsey) who won’t look beyond the top six or seven schools (may not even look at Stern). 27 in the Business Week rankings is just too low to get a really good job out of school and that’s the whole point of doing a MBA. The value of the MBA school’s brand will last with you throughout your career and, if you want to be a successful businessman, I would suggest you try and get into a bigger school, as you definitely believe you are bright enough to. A year extra waiting (and improving your resume) is not a big deal at your age.

Incidentally, I have gone back into the gaming business in the UK where no one knows what Wharton is and don’t value the brand at all. It’s a great school but I would not defend it just because I went there. I’d offer the same advice about Harvard, Stanford, Chicago etc etc.

Good luck,

Joe